[2:30] Thunderf00t's
first substantial point, after dissecting a game I don't know enough about,
concerns the motivations of game developers not being to appease feminists
or to subjugate women, but to earn a profit.

His checklist of game developer priority is flawed. Rarely
is it a conscious effort to subjugate or oppress women when you hear feminists
objecting to the sex portrayed in media. No feminist I know believes that game
designers meet in a room to discuss how best to oppress women. Designers do,
however, surely discuss how to best use diversity to appeal to and respect a wide audience,
rather than discourage it. The problem is the culture of our society that some
games and their creators don't escape.

[3:45] TF proposes an
alternate plot to Double Dragon, a game in which the player's girlfriend is
kidnapped in the intro and the beat 'em up game begins to save her. He suggests
that the feminist angle would be that the two male players leave to allow this "grown
adult" to fend for herself.

His example of an alternate Double Dragon in which the
player characters decide a captured grown women can care for herself is a
strawman. Feminism does not reject compassion for others, and I would argue
instead embraces empathy for the plight of a group of people. Feminists want
women to be treated equally to men, not elevated above. The issue is not the
act of rescuing another human being's life; it's about objectification and an underlying
trend for male-saves-female. Somehow TF equates women's autonomy and equality
with removing empathy, which I do not understand.

[5:00] - TF counters
Anita's description of objectification of the damsel in distress by describing
them as "loved ones to be helped".

A damsel in distress could be a "loved one to be
helped" if she had characterization, if she acted in a significant way as
a character. I remember the Paper Mario games at least implementing this with
Peach-specific levels that advanced the plot in one and having her as a regular playable
character in another.

This isn't about nitpicking a single instance and
arm-twisting an acceptable interpretation. It's about a systemic and continual
trend portraying women being more helpless and less human. In a world without
the gender bias we see today, there would be little objection to a damsel in
distress, as a proportional amount of the time it would be a man needing to be
rescued. In a society and industry that has demonstrated a healthy perspective
on gender, there would not be these sexist threads to analyze.

[5:30] - TF describes
how the feminist position he constructs from the platform of "helping
others objectifies them" extends to dismantling medical care.

His entire hospital/doctor rant is a strawman. Feminists do
not equate willingness to sacrifice with objectification. A long history of
games that use women with little humanizing characteristics as a reward, goal,
or motivation, however, does strongly imply objectification.

[6:14] - TF shows the
climactic ending to the opening scene of 2009's Star Trek, in which Kirk's father saves him and his mother by sending them to safety while piloting his ship into the
attacking one.

His Star Trek
clip, while a powerful scene from a good movie, clings to one example in
a series known for its multi-racial, sexually-diverse, and sexuality-embracing
tone. A series that is known for being progressive on these issues and
establishing a trust long ago strongly (daresay obviously) implies that the
scene he played is assuredly not meant to establish male superiority. Not to
mention the obvious necessity for the woman giving birth, the person literally
carrying the child, to be the one to be saved. Many more plausible reasons
exist for the choices made in that scene, which is why there is little
objection from feminists.

[7:30] - TF says the
following quote: "You can over-analyze this to come to your desired
conclusions."

I'm sure this quote will be tossed around fruitlessly. I
already accused TF of arm-twisting a sensible plot out of a beat 'em up game
myself. The point of Anita's videos are, again, not to find individual flaws in
single games to be fought over. It is to explore the continual trend in gaming,
over many games and decades, to exclude, subject, or objectify women.

[8:00] - TF
satirically over-analyzes games to spin them as anti-male.

First of all, male characters in games are often the ones to
be given agency and power. They are the capable ones, the heroes. They do not
suffer nearly the level of objectification or stereotyping that female
characters do. This deserves to be mentioned and kept in mind when discussing
how men are treated in games.

Feminists I know would agree that men are also sometimes
portrayed as dumb, violent, simplistic, lazy, or bad at specific things women
are stereotypically good at. Men stand to gain from feminism and women's
equality because certain undeserved traits or interests will no longer be
associated with a specific sex. Men who cry will not be stigmatized.
Women who enjoy sex will not be labeled as "sluts".

[9:00] - TF shows the
many ways in which the knight can die in Dragon's Lair.

Yes, games are made to make money. But there's so much more
to that idea. Games that represent the sexes fairly would capture more of the
market, first of all. To alienate half the population that might otherwise be
playing the same games that currently have male-dominated audiences is a true
disservice to the developers' own industry.

But the larger point is that game companies, developers and
publishers, that perpetuate old stereotypes should be avoided and no longer
patronized. And reflecting upon the past informs our current state and our
trajectory in the future.

[11:30] - TF satirically? comments
on Anita wearing make-up and jewelry as indicators that she is a hypocrite and
betraying feminist ideals.

Looking presentable for an informative video series is not
submitting to the patriarchy or being hypocritical in any way. Obviously a
feminist would try to look past societal norms and choose for himself or
herself whether to wear make-up and jewelry. To assume this choice is a product
of societal pressure is simply ad hominem
in my opinion. And no, it's not as easy to paint the picture TF just
attempted as it is to identify numerous games that continue sexist ideas. He is simply giving far too much leeway to the video game industry that all these
examples of gender inequality in games can be explained away.

[12:40] - TF suggests
for Anita and feminists to create "feminist games" themselves and see
if they sell.

"Feminist games"? Games don't have to constantly
push gender equality on the player to be deemed acceptable in a feminist view. Mass Effect is a trivially easy example
where sex barely enters into the equation, except for, well, the act of sex, as
well as biology (Asari, Krogan). Simply having men and women operating
side-by-side exemplifies this ideal without calling attention to it, much like
incorporating alien races do the same for a racial parallel. I already
mentioned Star Trek before, but it
holds the same standard in television and film. Skyrim creates a gender-neutral world, as well. BioWare and Bethesda
have come a long way to appease a wide audience by treating different players
fairly.

Much like games feminists would appreciate don't have to
ham-fist the concept of privilege down players' throats, the games Anita discusses don't outright claim that women are inferior to men. It's not about being so
overt, and TF knows this from his checklist, my first comment. It's about seeing women and men (and all else) portrayed in a reasonably
balanced light. It's not about "sexist games" and "feminist
games". It's about games that adopt one mentality or another, and how that
effects society. And more women will enter the gaming market when games appeal
to them, which will happen when they are portrayed fairly in them.

[15:35] - TF shows Tetris while positing that all games are
over-analyzed by feminists to find sexism.

Don't put Tetris up to have the audience associate that with
Anita's claims of systemic sexism in video games. Not every game follows every
trope or trend, and puzzle games least likely so. The majority of relevant
titles, ones that incorporate individuals with gender, however, do expose this
sexist attitude.

[15:53] - TF tackles
the following quote from Anita: "The belief that women are somehow a 'naturally
weaker gender' is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course
is completely false" by pointing to biological differences (upper and
lower body strength).

Anita is not ignoring the physical differences between men
and women. She is emphasizing the numerous other dimensions for which a person
can express capability or strength. "Weaker" is purposefully chosen
to entail more than an arm-wrestling contest.

[17:07] - TF points to
a sentence on Wikipedia coming from a feminist source, implying it is invalid.

Don't immediately associate Anita with some Wikipedia
reference she never directly cited. TF's connections are tenuous at best and
dishonest at worst. In this endless field of strawmen, it is mandatory that he connect the claims to whom he is arguing against.

[18:45] - TF notes
"in passing" that she has disabled comments on her videos and refutes
her reasoning of preventing harassment.

We have examples of what comments look like in videos that
discuss gender equality. Look at Watson's initial elevator
video for but a minute. It is not all rational discourse and disagreement
you see, but threats, harassment, and sexism. Anonymous people ARE attacking
women who speak on this issue because they are women and feminists.

---

I didn't hit everything TF brought up because of my lack of
knowledge on the tone and content of specific games and the validity of various
sources he complains about. I also ignored some of the more trivial points,
especially concerning semantics.

One of Anita's last points is crucial to understand her
overall message:

"Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using
the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no
value. But it’s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in [our] lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to
normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about
women."

Thunderf00t completely misses this subtlety, and it is his
consistent failing to recognize the remarkably reasonable goals of the feminist
movement that fuel this heated disagreement.
This is my first major post concerning feminism. I am open to constructive criticism from readers who feel I have misstepped or misrepresented the feminist position at any point.

5 comments:

Good post overall, I agree with most of the points, save for one nitpick.

"A series that is known for being progressive on these issues and establishing a trust long ago strongly (daresay obviously) implies that the scene he played is assuredly not meant to establish male superiority."

Just as it is with games, intent is never the issue when it comes to how gender roles are presented in media. I would argue that most video games that contain the damsel in distress trope are "not meant to establish male superiority."

It's about context. In the context of Star Trek's history of presenting positive examples of gender roles, one man sacrificing his life for his wife and child is a blip and doesn't really perpetuate any negative stereotypes.

I could start nitpicking through the entire post, but I would rather discuss some of the more general topics.

You seem to believe that:

"It's about a systemic and continual trend portraying women being more helpless and less human."

That is a large claim and a claim that is going to be difficult to prove when using vague discriptions such as "less human".

But you seem to be convinced that it is true. I myself have not seen this trend (and I have watched Anita's videos), but perhaps I am looking at it from a wrong perspective or have not been reading the same research on the subject as you have. So I am curious if there is something you could explain to me or some research you could point me to so I could be convinced that this large claim represents reality to some degree?

Then the second point I would like to make revolves around this quote:

"In a world without the gender bias we see today, there would be little objection to a damsel in distress, as a proportional amount of the time it would be a man needing to be rescued."

When would it be proportional? If it where in fact true that men in reality safe women in distress, relative offcourse to it happening the other way around, as much as it is portrayed in games and the media in general. Would that be proportional? Or should it be 50/50 or 52/48, based on the ratio of men and women in the world? I ask it because I am wandering about your perspective and whether or not you yourself are being a bit objective in your judgements. You seem to be making some pretty strong claims that I don't think you can back up with much evidence. That is oftenly a sign of some ideological thinking.

Last but not least. Without wanting to go through any specific points here, but at some points you seem to be making a argument as follows: TF says x about feminism, but according to me feminism is y, therefore TF is wrong. Who are you to define what feminism is? And on the basis of what do you claim that TF's experience of what feminism is invalid or wrong?

I am sorry that at time I might come across as a bit attacking. I am not trying to attack anyone personnaly,(since this is the internet and I don't know anybode here I would have nothing to gain from that) but I am sincerly curious to your response to these questions. I have watched both Anita's and TF's videos with great interest and this is the first time I have seen somebody come back at TF from the feminist perspective. So I am simply curious about the way you think about these issues and if you can convince me of what you are claiming.

PS whenn I say ideological thinking I mean that in a Marx kind a way. Starting with a big idea (an aircastle as he calls it) in which you believe very strongly and which informs your perspective on reality, making you see the empirical reality incorrectly because you did not start from the bottom, with the empirical facts. Untill a point is reached where cognitive dissonance kicks in, in order for the big idea to be protected from reality and the empirical facts. That is when ideological thinking degrades in to hollow frases and empty talk.

I put in some Marx parafrases for you as well :) Again nothing, personal, not directed at anybode here. I just like to throw in some Marx and his emoiricism every now and then :D